Case Background:
TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited & Ors. for infringement of their registered trademark 'PRESTIGE' and copyright infringement of the PRESTIGE logo. The plaintiff claimed continuous, extensive, and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to kitchenware since 1955 and adopted a distinctive logo with an arc in 1999. The defendants were found using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in their business of manufacturing and selling sanitaryware, leading to the plaintiff's legal action.
Issue:
The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record to support their claim of prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff's application was belated and an attempt to introduce documents that should have been filed earlier.
Ground:
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Limited, sought to place additional documents on record on several grounds:
Rebuttal to Defendants' Documents: The plaintiff claimed that the additional documents were necessary to rebut the documents filed by the defendants. The defendants had filed documents to support their claim of using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 2005, and the plaintiff sought to counter this with evidence of their prior use.
Discovery of New Documents: The plaintiff stated that they had discovered relevant documents from a previously disposed-of suit (Suit No. 289/08/1991) after the defendants filed their written statement. These documents, which were part of the evidence in the prior suit, were now sought to be placed on record to support their claim of continuous and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955.
Compliance with Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC: The plaintiff relied on the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for the filing of additional documents with the leave of the court if reasonable cause for non-disclosure is established. The plaintiff argued that the test of "reasonable cause" was satisfied as they had searched for and discovered these documents after the defendants' claims and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants since the trial had not yet commenced.
Precedent Set by the Court: The plaintiff pointed out that the Court had allowed the defendants' application for additional documents (I.A. 14694/2022) on 27th February, 2023. They argued that the same principles should apply to their application, given the similar circumstances and the need for procedural fairness.
Necessity to Establish Prior Use: The plaintiff emphasized the necessity of the additional documents to establish their prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955, which was crucial to their case against the defendants' claim of use since 2005.
In summary, the plaintiff's grounds for seeking to place additional documents on record included the need to rebut the defendants' claims, the discovery of new evidence, compliance with legal provisions, following established precedents, and the necessity to prove their case.
Judgment:
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC to place additional documents on record. The Court found that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to file relevant documents and that their application was belated. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the deadlines imposed by the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Legal Precedents:
The Court referred to decisions such as Sugandhi & Anr. v. P. Rajkumar, Vijay Kumar Varshney v. Longlast Power Products Ltd. & Anr., and CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to highlight the importance of procedural compliance and the strict interpretation of deadlines in commercial suits.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in its judgment, underscored the significance of procedural compliance and the need for parties to diligently file all relevant documents within the prescribed deadlines. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required to the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure in commercial disputes
Case Citation: TTK Prestige Ltd. Vs Baghla Sanitaryware:07.02.2024 : CS(COMM) 281/2021: 2024: DHC:1149: Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal: H.J.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited & Ors. for infringement of their registered trademark 'PRESTIGE' and copyright infringement of the PRESTIGE logo. The plaintiff claimed continuous, extensive, and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to kitchenware since 1955 and adopted a distinctive logo with an arc in 1999. The defendants were found using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' in their business of manufacturing and selling sanitaryware, leading to the plaintiff's legal action.
Issue:
The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record to support their claim of prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff's application was belated and an attempt to introduce documents that should have been filed earlier.
Ground:
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Limited, sought to place additional documents on record on several grounds:
Rebuttal to Defendants' Documents: The plaintiff claimed that the additional documents were necessary to rebut the documents filed by the defendants. The defendants had filed documents to support their claim of using the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 2005, and the plaintiff sought to counter this with evidence of their prior use.
Discovery of New Documents: The plaintiff stated that they had discovered relevant documents from a previously disposed-of suit (Suit No. 289/08/1991) after the defendants filed their written statement. These documents, which were part of the evidence in the prior suit, were now sought to be placed on record to support their claim of continuous and exclusive use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955.
Compliance with Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC: The plaintiff relied on the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for the filing of additional documents with the leave of the court if reasonable cause for non-disclosure is established. The plaintiff argued that the test of "reasonable cause" was satisfied as they had searched for and discovered these documents after the defendants' claims and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants since the trial had not yet commenced.
Precedent Set by the Court: The plaintiff pointed out that the Court had allowed the defendants' application for additional documents (I.A. 14694/2022) on 27th February, 2023. They argued that the same principles should apply to their application, given the similar circumstances and the need for procedural fairness.
Necessity to Establish Prior Use: The plaintiff emphasized the necessity of the additional documents to establish their prior use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' since 1955, which was crucial to their case against the defendants' claim of use since 2005.
In summary, the plaintiff's grounds for seeking to place additional documents on record included the need to rebut the defendants' claims, the discovery of new evidence, compliance with legal provisions, following established precedents, and the necessity to prove their case.
Judgment:
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC to place additional documents on record. The Court found that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to file relevant documents and that their application was belated. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the deadlines imposed by the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Legal Precedents:
The Court referred to decisions such as Sugandhi & Anr. v. P. Rajkumar, Vijay Kumar Varshney v. Longlast Power Products Ltd. & Anr., and CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to highlight the importance of procedural compliance and the strict interpretation of deadlines in commercial suits.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in its judgment, underscored the significance of procedural compliance and the need for parties to diligently file all relevant documents within the prescribed deadlines. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required to the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure in commercial disputes
Case Citation: TTK Prestige Ltd. Vs Baghla Sanitaryware:07.02.2024 : CS(COMM) 281/2021: 2024: DHC:1149: Delhi High Court: Anish Dayal: H.J.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
